Cutting The Pentagon Budget-- By 10%

I caught those above two minutes Wednesday night on MSNBC of Ali Velshi interviewing Bernie about his amendment to cut the Pentagon budget by 10% and repurpose the funds for America's most economically hard-pressed communities. What's a mere 10% you might ask and how can that help anyone? How about $74 billion with a "b?" The proposed Pentagon Budget is $740.5 billion and Bernie and his allies in this battle-- Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (R-OR), Ron Wyden (R-OR) and, believe it or not, normally reflexive war-monger Chuck Schumer who may be nervous about a prospective upcoming primary challenge from AOC, in the Senate and Barbara Lee (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) in the House-- would like to see that money go towards healthcare, housing and childcare in communities with a poverty rate of over 25%.

The amendment is to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021 by far right Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe-- and it's one of over 700 amendments offered in the Senate alone! That includes another one by Bernie-- along with Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Lee (R-UT)-- to force a Pentagon audit and one by Bernie, "Reduction in Amount Authorized to be Appropriated for Fiscal Year 2021 by this Act" that would amount to a 14% spending cut across all DoD agencies (excluding personnel, research and healthcare).

Most of the 700+ amendments will never be voted on. This one will. In a letter of support from dozens of organizations across the country other members were urged to sign on as cosponsors. "We urge you to co-sponsor Amendment 1788 introduced by Senators Sanders and Markey, and vote in support should it reach the Senate floor."

Our militarism budget is out of control. In 2019, the United States spent more money on our military than the next nine countries combined. The Department of Defense's budget eclipses that of federal courts, education, the State Department, local economic development, public health, and environmental protection combined, yet the Pentagon is incapable of passing a basic audit.

Multiple analyses have determined that U.S. and collective security would not suffer, and in fact would improve by, cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from the runaway Pentagon budget through common-sense steps, like eliminating redundant and unusable weapons systems, ending wars, ceasing reliance on expensive contractors, and rejecting new nuclear weapons development. These overdue steps would instead allow us to properly focus our investments on our most urgent and pressing human needs. Polling demonstrates that this is a popular idea, and most American voters want to see money redirected from the Pentagon to invest in human security.

The jarring recent images of police with weapons of war in our streets is a stark reminder of how militarism and white supremacy drive misplaced spending priorities both at home and abroad. Meanwhile, all over the country, millions have lost their jobs and access to healthcare as the novel coronavirus pandemic rages on. The current moment should force us to confront the reality that, for too long, we have invested in the wrong priorities, the wrong tools, and the wrong solutions.

As a point of comparison: last year, the Centers for Disease Control budget was $7 billion, just 7 percent of the national policing budget, and less than 1 percent of the Pentagon budget. Those three figures alone tell a tragic story about what and who this country prioritizes and values.

We should no longer tolerate unchecked spending on systems that fuel violence and corporate greed at the expense of the basic needs of our people. This amendment is a crucial step toward a federal budget that actually aligns with our values. We strongly urge you to support it.

This amendment is going to be voted on in both houses of Congress by the end of the month. I'll remember to tell you who votes for it and who votes against it. Will you remember to not support Democrats who oppose it? I know Eva Putzova, Cathy Kunkel and Liam O'Mara are, in great part, motivated to run for Congress because of a genuine yearning for peace on earth. I asked each how they feel about the amendment. Eva told me that "It always comes down to the institutionalized, legalized corruption. Those who take money from corporate interests benefiting from the military-industrial complex like my opponent vote for expansion of the DoD budget every single time. Finally, we have a bill that can divert resources from wasteful and inhumane war economy to programs and services we desperately need. I doubt Congressman O'Halleran will have the political courage to do what's right but hope these will be among the last bills he would cast his votes for."

"My opponent, Congressman Mooney, recently cosponsored a bill to claw money back from the CARES Act-- money for low-income legal aid, public transit and the Peace Corps, among others," said West Virginia progressive Cathy Kunkel. "Rather than cutting programs with direct benefit to West Virginians (and millions of other Americans), the real question is what benefit are Americans really deriving from our oversized military budget, especially when the Department of Defense is incapable of passing an audit to even account for these expenditures? If I were in Congress today, I would be supporting efforts to redirect military spending towards basic economic needs, like healthcare and education."

Liam O'Mara, the progressive Democrat running for the last GOP hold in Riverside County, reminded me that "We were warned, repeatedly, and most famously in 1961 by Eisenhower, that the defence establishment gaining influence over Congress would be disastrous for our way of life and system of government. We ignored those warnings, and have sent people back to Congress again and again who are fully bought and paid for by the military-industrial complex. Ken Calvert is one such swamp-creature-- a so-called Representative who refuses to meet his constituents and is 98% funded by corporate interests, the largest share of which are defence contractors. Maybe if we stopped electing people who are there just to serve the stock price of big corporations, and whose loyalty is only to the almighty dollar, we wouldn't be spending such an obscene amount of money on tools of destruction, or using them to bomb eight countries. It's time to wake up, stop shovelling blood and treasure into that yawning void that is the stock market, and get this country working for ordinary people again. And the way to do that is to fire spineless lackeys like Calvert who'll spend any amount of our money to make his owners richer."

New must-watch video from Brave New Films:

Unless He Pleads Insanity, Giuliani Is Going To Prison

Super Ethical, Always Legal by Nancy Ohanian

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal quoted Señor Trumpanzee admitting what people who watch Giuliani have long known: "He looks for corruption wherever he goes." Republicans have been claiming Giuliani has been helping Trump with foreign affairs. Giuliani, on the other hand, has claimed je was just tending to his own business. Yep-- looking for opportunities "for corruption wherever he goes." That's Rudy alright.

CNN reporter Erica Orden wrote yesterday that "Federal prosecutors in New York have subpoenaed the brother of one of the recently indicted associates of Rudy Giuliani, according to two people familiar with the matter, as they escalate their investigation in the campaign-finance case." Igor and Lev-- and presumably Giuliani-- are in deep doo-doo, of their own making. It was Igor's bro-- Steven-- who got subpenaed. According to CNN, "Investigators have doled out multiple subpoenas and conducted several property searches, in one case blowing the door off a safe to access the contents." That sounds serious. While Democratic presidential nominee hopeful/pipsqueak, Mayo Pete was saying how he'd appoint more judges like Kennedy and Souter, neutral right-of-center wishy washy "moderates," a strong justice-and-values-driven judge has been signing some search warrants that are probably not making Trump and Barr very happy.

Federal prosecutors told a judge this week that they are sifting through data from more than 50 bank accounts. In addition, they've put a filter team in place as they examine communications obtained via search warrant and subpoena, sensitive to material that could be subject to attorney-client privilege because Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal attorney, counted Parnas as a client. A filter team is a separate set of prosecutors who are assigned to examine evidence and set aside material that is privileged.

Since the October 9 arrests, federal agents visited the New York home of Steven Fruman and served him with a subpoena from Manhattan federal prosecutors, the people familiar with the matter said.

...It's not clear why prosecutors are interested in Steven Fruman, or what specifically agents sought from the safe. Steven Fruman is listed in US Security and Exchange Commission filings as the vice president of FD Import & Export, the same company his brother ran.

Igor Fruman also appeared to use the address of a property in Woodmere, New York, that belongs to his brother when making certain political donations, according to Federal Election Commission and other public records.

As they pursue an ongoing investigation into Igor Fruman, Parnas and their co-defendants, prosecutors are also investigating Giuliani's Ukranian business dealings... In recent days, Giuliani has been seeking a criminal-defense attorney, CNN has reported. He says he has not been contacted by the FBI or by New York federal prosecutors.

Bess Levin noted in Vanity Fair yesterday that Giuliani "is now being investigated by the DOJ’s criminal division, in addition to a probe by the Southern District of New York... That makes things awkward not only for Giuliani, in that he’d presumably like to stay out of prison, but also for numerous members of the government with whom he worked on his Ukraine scheme, as well as, of course, for the president. "He appears to be a subject, if not a target, of an active investigation. So to have him be a part of the legal team would be troublesome, to say the least," Greg Brower, who worked as the FBI’s top liaison to Congress until 2018, told Politico. "At best it’s a messy situation and more likely it’s just completely dysfunctional." According to reporter Darren Samuelsohn, Giuliani was notably absent from the White House this week when Trump’s other lawyers huddled with him for an impeachment strategy session.

Giuliani has also been notably absent from the TV circuit of late, which suggests a rare prudence for a man who has had no problem incriminating his presidential client on television before. In recent days the anti-ferret activist turned presidential attorney’s only public comment has been a tweet that read, “With all the Fake News let me make it clear that everything I did was to discover evidence to defend my client against false charges. Dems would be horrified by the attacks on me, if my client was a terrorist. But they don’t believe @realDonaldTrump has rights. Justice will prevail.” Per Politico, a “back channel effort has been underway for more than a week” to help Giuliani lawyer up, and potential charges include “everything from violating federal statutes dealing with bribery, foreign lobbying registration, and disclosure to making false statements to government officials.”

Giuliani and Hunter Biden weren't just looking to squeeze the Ukrainians. Eric Levitz reported that both crooks did legal work for the same slimeball Romanian real estate tycoon charged with corruption, Gabriel Popoviciu. "As of last month," reported Levitz, "none of the fallout from Rudy’s Kiev vacation was enough to quell his appetite for unearthing Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in the former Soviet bloc. 'We haven’t moved to Romania yet,' Giuliani told Fox News in September, referring to Hunter’s unspecified illicit activities in that nation. 'Wait ‘til we get to Romania.'"

As it happens, Hunter Biden did once enjoy an ethically questionable gig in Romania. In 2016, when his father was still vice-president, Hunter agreed to provide legal advice to Gabriel Popoviciu, a Romanian real-estate tycoon who’d recently been convicted on charges of corruption, and was mounting an appeal. In 2014, Joe Biden had forcefully advocated for the Romanian government to crack down on graft within its borders. And there is no evidence that Popoviciu secured any favors from the White House as a result of hiring Hunter. But it is extremely plausible that he hired Biden’s son in the hope that doing so he might ingratiate himself to the Obama administration. If Popoviciu merely wanted the advice of any undistinguished young attorney, he presumably could have found one with a lower hourly rate-- and more familiarity with the finer points of Romanian law-- in his home country.

So, you can understand why a stickler for legal ethics like Rudy Giuliani would object to Hunter’s behavior. After all, Popoviciu ultimately lost his appeal, and was sentenced to seven years in prison for his kleptocratic land deal. To monetize one’s affiliation with the White House-- by providing legal assistance to such a crook-- goes against everything Giuliani stands for.

Which, to be clear, is nothing. Rudy Giuliani stands for nothing (he’s more the sitting type). As NBC News reports:

Popoviciu was convicted in 2016 but launched an appeal. He assembled a high profile legal team to fight the conviction, which included former FBI director Louis Freeh … Freeh continued working on behalf of Popoviciu [after his appeal failed]. Last year, he tapped Giuliani, his longtime friend, to assist in his Romanian work.

Giuliani’s hiring created what appears in hindsight a strange-bedfellows arrangement. Giuliani, who has been the loudest critic of Hunter Biden’s work in the Ukraine, was working on the same side as the younger Biden in Romania.

In August 2018, Giuliani wrote a letter to Romania’s president and prime minister criticizing the country’s recent efforts to rein in corruption as overly aggressive. Giuliani’s position contradicted the U.S. stance on anti-corruption efforts in Romania.

I’m starting to think that Team Trump’s avowed concerns with corruption in Eastern Europe may not be entirely on the level.

Although it just because public yesterday, a couple of weeks ago, Giuliani butt-dialed an NBC News reporter at 11:07 pm and the 3 minute long message went right to voicemail. It was late in New York, but it was early in [where the hell] and the reporter heard 3 minutes of Giuliani hacking it up with [who the hell?].

Disorganized Crime

"You know," Giuliani says at the start of the recording. "Charles would have a hard time with a fraud case 'cause he didn't do any due diligence."

It wasn't clear who Charles is, or who may have been implicated in a fraud. In fact, much of the message's first minute is difficult to comprehend, in part because the voice of the other man in the conversation is muffled and barely intelligible.

But then, Giuliani says something that's crystal clear.

"Let's get back to business."

He goes on.

"I gotta get you to get on Bahrain."

Giuliani is well-connected in the kingdom of Bahrain.

Last December, he visited the Persian Gulf nation and had a one-on-one meeting with King Hamad Bin Isa al-Khalifa in the royal palace. "King receives high-level U.S. delegation," read the headline of the state-run Bahrain News Agency blurb about the visit.

Giuliani runs a security consulting company, but it's not clear why he would have a meeting with Bahrain's king. Was he acting in his capacity as a consultant? As Trump's lawyer? Or as an international fixer running a shadow foreign policy for the president?

In May, Giuliani told the Daily Beast his firm had signed a deal with Bahrain to advise its police force on counterterrorism measures. But the Bahrain News Agency account of the meeting suggested Giuliani was viewed more like an ambassador than a security consultant. "HM the King praised the longstanding Bahraini-U.S. relations, noting keenness of the two countries to constantly develop them," it said.

The voicemail yielded no details about the meeting. But Giuliani can be heard telling the man that he's "got to call Robert again tomorrow."

"Is Robert around?" Giuliani asks.

"He's in Turkey," the man responds.

Giuliani replies instantly. "The problem is we need some money."

The two men then go silent. Nine seconds pass. No word is spoken. Then Giuliani chimes in again.

"We need a few hundred thousand," he says.

It's unclear what the two men were talking about. But Giuliani is known to have worked with a Robert who has ties to Turkey.

His name is Robert Mangas, and he's a lawyer at the firm Greenberg Traurig LLP, as well as a registered agent of the Turkish government.

Giuliani himself was employed by Greenberg Traurig until about May 2018.

Mangas provided an affidavit in the case of Reza Zarrab, a Turkish gold trader charged in the United States with laundering Iranian money in a scheme to evade American sanctions.

Giuliani was brought on to assist Zarrab in 2017. He traveled to Turkey with his former law partner Michael Mukasey and attempted to strike a deal with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to secure the release of their jailed client, alarming the federal prosecutor leading the case.

Giuliani and Mangas were both employed by Greenberg Traurig at the time. The firm and Mangas had registered with the Justice Department to lobby the U.S. government on behalf of Turkey, according to an affidavit from Mangas.

Mangas provided the affidavit at the request of a judge to explain whether there was any conflict in Giuliani representing Zarrab while still employed by a firm registered to lobby on behalf of Turkey.

Mangas, who did not return a request for comment, says in the court document that Giuliani was never involved in the representation of Turkey.

A Greenberg Traurig spokesperson said Mangas has not been to Turkey since 2013. He joined the firm in 2014, according to his affidavit.

"Mr. Mangas has not spoken to Mr. Giuliani since before he left Greenberg Traurig in May 2018," the spokesperson said.

Giuliani's conversation partner can be heard responding to the "few hundred thousand" comment. But it's possible to make out only the beginning of his answer, and even that is somewhat garbled.

"I'd say even if Bahrain could get, I'm not sure how good [unintelligible words] with his people," the man says.

"Yeah, okay," Giuliani says.

"You want options? I got options," the man says.

"Yeah, give me options," Giuliani replies.

Will Their Opposition To Healthcare Kill The GOP November 6th?

One of the funniest moments in the election debate this cycle-- at least for me-- came when Arizona congresswoman, Martha McSally, a garden variety Trump rubber-stamp who had voted to repeal protections for pre-existing conditions several times, was cornered by a reporter asking her to square her consistent record against healthcare with her promise now-- as she runs for U.S. Senate-- to protect people with pre-existing conditions from the greed of insurance companies. After lying for a few minutes to a reporter who kept pointing out her votes, she finally said something to the effect of "Can't you ask me about something voters are interested in, like the Caravan?" True, Fox News and hate talk radio hosts are interested in the Caravan... but voters? Not so much. They're more interested in Republicans trying to take away their healthcare.

In TX-10, Mike Siegel is campaign for Congress on a platform that includes Medicare for All. His opponent, Michael McCaul is a Trump enabler who has voted to destroy Medicare and to strip away protections for pre-existing conditions. "I have friends and family who would not be alive, and would not have healthcare, but for the Affordable Care Act's protections for pre-existing conditions," Mike told us. "My cousin received a liver transplant that his private insurance refused to pay for, thanks to the ACA. My opponent Michael McCaul voted repeatedly to repeal the ACA without having any replacement in place. The differences between us could not be more stark, and the choice for voters is clear." This is the ad Mike has been running on social media in his district:



In Omaha, progressive Democrat Kara Eastman has had to confront this bullshit head-on, as her opponent, anti-healthcare fanatic and desperate, compulsive liar Don Bacon (R-NE), has tried to pose as a protector of preexisting conditions-- even though he voted against protecting them every single time he could. "My opponent," she told us, "voted 'Hell Yes' for the AHCA. He claims this would have protected people with pre-existing conditions. However, the Washington Post gave this claim 3 PINOCCHIOS as the law would have allowed states the option to seek waivers that would nullify this promise."



The new Ipsos poll released by Reuters yesterday shows that 58% of likely voters want to keep ObamaCare in place and "eight in 10 likely voters from each major party want to protect coverage for people with existing conditions, such as heart disease, diabetes or cancer." I wonder how long before Trump and his sycophants start claiming they support it too. And have always supported it.

With the Nov. 6 elections looming, Democrats are reminding voters of Republicans’ often-repeated promises to repeal the 2010 law. Many Republican candidates are softening their tone or removing website references decrying what they long derided as “Obamacare,” according to candidates, analysts and healthcare experts in both parties.

As Democrats seek to take control of Congress, they see Republicans as having a particularly weak spot on healthcare. Sixty-seven of the 73 most vulnerable Republican incumbents in the House of Representatives voted at least once to eliminate the ACA and its protections for pre-existing conditions, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund.



Some of those votes date back to the Obama administration, though his successor, Republican President Donald Trump, also campaigned on a promise to undo the law. A repeal attempt after Trump took office last year failed.

Opinion polls show Democrats as having a chance to achieve the net gain of 23 seats they would need to take a majority in the House, but facing a longer shot at picking up the two seats they need to take control of the Senate.

Democratic activists said the repeated Republican attempts to repeal the ACA provide a powerful tool to motivate voters.

“Healthcare has an ability to move people into action,” said Ben Wikler, Washington director of liberal activist group MoveOn. “It is turning people out in town hall meetings ... getting people to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls and getting voters to the polls.”

One sign of Democratic focus: 54.5 percent of Democrats’ federal election ads from Sept. 18 to Oct. 15 mentioned healthcare, far more than the 8.7 percent that did so at the same time in 2010, according to the Wesleyan Media Project.

Some 33.9 percent of Republican federal election ads mentioned healthcare during this period and 31.5 percent in 2010. Republicans took control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, boosted in part by opposition to the ACA, which had become law earlier that year.

While the aim of the ACA was to expand healthcare insurance to reach millions of Americans who did not have any coverage, Republicans campaigned for years against it as government overreach, especially its requirement that people buy health insurance or pay a financial penalty.

U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill has made healthcare the focus of her campaign in Missouri against Republican challenger Josh Hawley. The state’s attorney general, Hawley has faced criticism from individuals and healthcare groups for saying he supports covering pre-existing conditions even after suing to end the ACA.

“Everyone is feeling anxious and worried about the future of healthcare,” McCaskill said in a telephone interview. “It’s beginning to dawn on people that the Republicans didn’t have a replacement (for the ACA), and that they have no ideas on how they could do it better.”

Hawley ran for state attorney general by emphasizing his role in a lawsuit against the ACA that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and also worked on a team that successfully challenged the ACA’s requirement to provide contraceptives coverage.

Despite Republican opposition, eight years after its passage many Americans have seen some benefits from the law.

“By the time Republicans last year tried to repeal the law, it had become real, people had benefited,” said Brad Woodhouse, executive director of Protect Our Care. He said at least 20 Republican incumbents have “scrubbed” their websites to appear more supportive of the law.

In Kentucky, Representative Andy Barr has called his vote to repeal the ACA “a great day for freedom in America” but now plays up his support of programs to prevent and treat opioid addiction. In Maine, Representative Bruce Poliquin dropped a promise to “end Obamacare” and now talks about protecting hospitals.



Ted Cruz, a U.S. senator from Texas, said during a debate this month against Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke that he would protect pre-existing illnesses, despite having once forced a shutdown of the federal government over ACA repeal efforts.

In a hotly contested upstate New York congressional race, Democratic challenger Antonio Delgado has hammered his opponent, first-term Republican John Faso, over his vote to repeal the ACA.

“John Faso, despite voting to take away protections, is running TV ads saying the exact opposite,” he said during a recent town hall meeting. “How can you look someone in the face and say, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’ After a while, you’re just lying to our faces blatantly. This is too real to lie about.”

Faso defended his vote in an interview, saying New York state law already ensures patients with pre-existing conditions are protected, regardless of federal legislation.

Despite support for specific elements of the law, 52 percent of likely voters told Reuters/Ipsos they view the U.S. healthcare system as “poor” or “terrible.”

Trump, Of Course, Was Lying About Iran, The Same Way He Lies About His Renoir

Two fakes-- intention is always to deceive

Trump has a Renoir? No. He has a cheap knockoff of Renoir's Two Sisters on the Terrace, a masterpiece hanging in the Chicago Art Institute... but he's been lying to everyone who sees it for decades, claiming his junk is real. His junk is fake and everyone knows it. Trump is a fake. Too bad so many low-IQ voters addicted to prescription drugs were unable to figure that out last year. And now we're all suffering because of it.

Friday the governments of Britain, France and Germany issued a joint statement affirming Iran's compliance with the JCPOA agreement and their continued support for it. British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said they “stand committed to its full implementation by all sides... The nuclear deal was the culmination of 13 years of diplomacy and was a major step towards ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program is not diverted for military purposes. We encourage the US administration and Congress to consider the implications to the security of the US and its allies before taking any steps that might undermine the JCPOA, such as re-imposing sanctions on Iran lifted under the agreement. Our governments are committed to ensuring the JCPOA is maintained." Even Trump's ally in the Kremlin weighed in against him, criticizing Señor Trumpanzee's "aggressive and threatening rhetoric" and asserting that the asshole's pique and foolishness "“would not have a direct impact on the implementation of the deal" but was "an element of (US) domestic debate."

The rest of the world saw right through Trump's lies on Iran and called him out on them. But what about here in the U.S. So far Republicans have either been mum or, in the case of a few right-wing crackpots, have agreed with Trump. American voters have noticed-- as every poll on the question has noted, that Trump is a congenital liar and doesn't tell the truth about anything. Few Americans-- basically his ignorant and drug-addicted shriveling base-- trust him as a source of reliable information. Over the weekend, the Washington Post fact checked his lie-filled speech on Iran. Glenn Kessler looked at some of the specific lies:

“The previous administration lifted these sanctions, just before what would have been the total collapse of the Iranian regime, through the deeply controversial 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.”

There is little evidence that the Iranian government was on the verge of “total collapse,” though it was certainly struggling because of international sanctions. The Obama administration had been able to win broad international support for crippling sanctions precisely because it convinced Russia and China, two major Iranian partners, that the pressure was designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and force the government into negotiations. If the government had started to totter because of the sanctions, especially if it was perceived as part of an American campaign of regime change, that support likely would have been withdrawn.

JCPOA “also gave the regime an immediate financial boost and over $100 billion its government could use to fund terrorism. The regime also received a massive cash settlement of $1.7 billion from the United States, a large portion of which was physically loaded onto an airplane and flown into Iran.”

Trump often suggests the United States gave a $100 billion to Iran, but these were Iranian assets that had been frozen. The Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $55 billion left. (Much of the funds were tied up in illiquid projects in China.) For its part, the Central Bank of Iran said the number was actually $32 billion, not $55 billion. Iran has also complained that it cannot actually move the money back to Iran because foreign banks won’t touch it for fear of U.S. sanctions and their U.S. exposure.

As for the $1.7 billion in cash, this was related to the settlement of a decades-old claim between the two countries. An initial payment of $400 million was handed over on Jan. 17, 2016, the same day Iran’s government agreed to release four American detainees, including the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian. The timing-- which U.S. officials insisted was a coincidence-- suggested the cash could be viewed as a ransom payment.

But the initial cash payment was Iran’s money. In the 1970s, the then-pro-Western Iranian government under the shah paid $400 million for U.S. military equipment. But the equipment was never delivered because the two countries broke off relations after the seizure of American hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

Two other payments totaling $1.3 million-- a negotiated agreement on the interest owed on the $400 million-- came some weeks later.

“The deal allows Iran to continue developing certain elements of its nuclear program and, importantly, in just a few years, as key restrictions disappear, Iran can sprint towards a rapid nuclear weapons breakout.”

JCPOA has been in place for two years. Certain provisions of the nuclear aspects of the deal do not last indefinitely, but virtually all phase out between years 10 and 25. It’s doubtful Iran would have agreed to an indefinite ban on nuclear activities, given that it has a right to have a nonnuclear program under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Critics of the agreement argue that Iran’s past behavior suggests it will cheat in any case and thus has forfeited its rights.

Trump does not mention that under the agreement, Iran is permanently prohibited from acquiring nuclear weapons, and will be subject to certain restrictions and additional monitoring indefinitely. (Readers may also be interested in a previous fact check we did on whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons; we found the claim dubious.)

It’s unclear why Trump refers to a “few years” before a potential nuclear breakout. Nonnuclear provisions having to do with arms-related transfers to and from Iran will expire in three years, or possibly sooner. In six years, U.N. Security Council restrictions end on any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

“Those who argue that somehow the JCPOA deals only with nuclear matters and should be judged separate from the restrictions in [U.N.] resolution 2231 fail to explain that a nuclear weapon is a warhead and a delivery system,” noted David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, in testimony before Congress. “Today, the delivery vehicle of choice is a ballistic missile.”

Who Supports Medicare For All? And Who Doesn't?

A couple of days ago, Rick Nolan, a progressive congressman from a district in Minnesota Trump won (54.2-38.6%) tweeted that he and John Conyers had introduced one of the first Medicare-for-All bills in 1978. "America, he wrote, is ready!" Here's a clip of Bernie explaining why the U.S. should aim for single-payer healthcare in 1992. Harvard's School of Public Health conducted a poll for Politico on Americans' top priorities for Congress for the rest of the year.

When asked how important each of ten domestic issues being widely discussed in Washington should be for Congress, the top priorities for Republicans are to revisit repealing and replacing Obamacare (53%) and reduce the budget deficit and government spending (36%). The top priorities for Democrats are to take action to lower prescription drug prices (51%) and continue the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 election (44%).

What I found most interesting about the chart from the poll is how Democrats and independents are so in synch on so many issues. Republicans are consistently the odd-man-out on the issues Americans are most concerned about, not just on healthcare but across the whole policy spectrum. And this is very much in line with what other recent polls have found. Look at this one from a recent PPP survey:

This is not good news for Republicans heading into the 2018 midterms. Now that Republicans, with control of both Houses of Congress and the presidency, have failed-- several times-- to repeal Obamacare, interest in Bernie single payer, Medicare-For-All plan is at an all time high. His bill takes Medicare and makes it automatic for all Americans, regardless of age,adds care for teeth, eyes and ears, and eliminates co-pays. It eliminates for-profit insurance companies from the healthcare system-- along with their incentives for denying doctors' requests for care for their patients (although people would be able to buy supplemental private insurance if they wished, which doesn't seem to make any sense). It includes "hospital services, including emergency services and inpatient drugs; ambulatory patient services; primary and preventive services, including disease management; prescription drugs, medical devices, and biological products; mental health and substance abuse treatment services, including inpatient care; laboratory and diagnostic services; comprehensive reproductive, maternity, and newborn care; pediatrics; oral health, vision, and audiology; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices"-- and it is universal.

This is going to take some years to pass-- starting with the election of not just more Democrats to Congress, but progressive Democrats. Many conservative Democrats do not support Medicare-For-All, especially not the money-grubbers who are bribed for the healthcare industry. So far these are the senators who have signed on as co-sponsors:

• Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Cory Booker (D-NJ)
• Al Franken (D-MN)
• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Kamala Harris (D-CA)
• Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
• Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
• Ed Markey (D-MA)
• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
• Brian Schatz (D-HI)
• Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
• Tom Udall (D-NM)
• Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

No Medicare-For-All supporters on this list

Chuck Schumer, the picture of senatorial pay-for-play, and a huge taker of bribes from the special interested opposed to the bill, is not supporting it and has hand-picked two corrupt conservative candidates for the two seats Democrats have a good chance of winning in 2018, Arizona Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema and Nevada right-of-center lightweight Jacky Rosen. The prospects for increasing congressional support for single payer healthcare are better in the House, where a lame and  incompetent DCCC is less likely to get its anti-healthcare candidates past contested primaries against progressives. You can support progressive House candidates who support single-payer healthcare by tapping on the thermometer on the right. The DCCC leaders oppose Medicare-For-All proposals-- again because of special interest money flowing their way-- and they are recruiting candidates in their own imagines, often Blue Dogs, "ex"-Republicans, clueless self-funders to run as Democrats. DCCC leaders have even instructed their candidates to deceive primary voters by falsely claiming to "support" Medicare-For-All in a general sense (while never committing to supporting any actual Medicare-For-All legislation).